Thank you very much for your letter of March 8 asking me to submit my views on certain questions which are currently before the Senate Government Operations Committee. My responses to your questions are as follows. Question 1. What role should government play in setting long-term goals and the development of strategies for achieving these goals? For the most part, I agree with the consensus of the participants in the February symposium which you chaired that it is the responsibility of government to look ahead, to plan, to set objectives, and to define goals for the nation. However, I would add two qualifications. In the first place, if these activities are to be meaningful, they cannot be carried out in a vacuum. They must be part of a continuum of processes essential to any well-governed society--1.e. planning, decision making, implementation, feedback, and evalua tion. In the second place, and again, if these activities are to be meaningful, they must involve government in general, not just the federal government. All governments, federal, state and local participate in providing the public services which are needed in the nation as a whole, and in each of its regions and communities. In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency for them to become partners in carrying out their responsibilities. The objective of planning is to be able to allocate resources according to need in terms of some order of priority. I believe we cannot even begin to conceptualize this requirement short of a carefully organized and orchestrated cooperative planning effort in which all levels of government participate. Question 2. What is government presently doing in this regard, and is it in any way deficient? Government is not doing enough in this regard presently, to be sure, but we have moved a lot farther along the way toward developing the needed capability than most people realize. For upwards of a decade, there has been growing realization of the need for developing our capabilities to look ahead, Letter to The Honorable John Glenn from Scott Keyes Page 2 March 22, 1976 to plan, to coordinate and integrate our efforts toward the improved use of resources. In my view, Congress has already given us sufficient policy guidance, through such legislation as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. Meanwhile, significant evolution has been taking place in the structures and processes of government at all levels--through the rise of substate district organizations; through the renaissance of state planning; through solid experience with cooperative effort in multi-state regions; through various innovations in the executive branch of the federal government, such as the Federal Regional Councils, and Integrated Grant Administration. By all odds, the most significant step which has been taken is in your own branch of the federal government, through the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The various mandates which Congress has given itself in this act, not only to deal with the budget from a total point of view, but to apportion budget authority to the various committees, to consider the impact of alternative formulations of the budget on the growth and development of the country, and to build in evaluation procedures, will do more than anything I can think of to bring to life the whole question of looking ahead, planning, and working with the states and localities to determine needs, resources, and orders of priority. One can pinpoint deficiencies all up and down the line, in organization, in responsibilities, and in processes. However, I think the greatest single deficiency at this time is in know-how. We have to learn how to do what needs to be done, and I, like others, have had to reconcile myself to the realization that however much we may wish to speed up the process of evolution, there is no such thing as instant knowledge. Question 3. If it is deficient, what can be done to improve the effort either through reform of existing institutions, or the development of new institutions? Since we already have so many public activities and institutions in this country, I think as a general principle we should work with what we have as much as possible, regrouping and reorienting ourselves as we see the light, and only resorting to new institutions when there is no other alternative. What I see evolving over the next several years is an integrated, cooperative federal-state-local planning and management system capable of responding to the needs of the partners as they go about implementing the broad guidelines of policy already laid down by Congress. In addition to units in Congress and the executive branch capable of organizing, activating and providing leadership to the system, it is likely to include the ten standard federal regions, the fifty states, and six hundred, more or less, substate district organizations. Anything which can be done to hasten this process of evolution, if my perception is correct, will be all to the good. Examples which could be cited woul include consolidating within the Executive Office of the President planning and information services which are presently widely distributed throughout the various departments and agencies; defining as clearly as possible the duties and Letter to The Honorable John Glenn from Scott Keyes Page 3 March 22, 1976 responsibilities of this consolidated unit, including long-range economic planning to determine what our resources can and should be; and establishing or designating whatever units and channels of communication may be necessary in Congress to provide for essential interaction between the legislative and executive branches in this area of responsibility. Parallel actions must be carried out at the regional, state and district level if the system is to be both viable and vital. In addition to balanced growth and development, an overriding objective must be to decentralize as much decision making and administrative power as possible from Washington to the states and localities. To that end, we need to build on the foundation already laid in the Federal Regional Councils, giving them real responsibilities, sharing these responsibilities with the state governors, and providing them with staffs adequate to handle the work involved. Those of us who are engaged in teaching and research can assist both by educating the students who will eventually have to help develop and operate the system, and by carrying out studies which will provide needed information flows and analytical tools. For example, I am currently engaged in developing a proposed new tool for substate district planning which I call the "Areawide Advisory Budget." It will present an overview of all existing and proposed revenues and expenditures in an area, federal, state and local. While this device is intended to be useful generally in comprehensive area planning, one of its principal purposes is to enable local governments to participate effectively in a joint federal-state-local planning system. I will be pleased to submit papers relating to this project to you and your committee if you would like to know more about it. In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on two bills which have been referred to your committee for consideration, the first introduced by Senator Humphrey, S. 3050, the Balanced National Growth and Development Act of 1974, and the second, S. 1795, the Balanced Growth and Economic Planning Act of 1975, introduced by Senators Humphrey and Javits. Each of these bills attempts to come to grips with the kinds of questions you are raising, but they approach the problem from somewhat differing tage points. I think that they complement, rather thanuplicate each other and that it would be time well spent if the staff, could wry of these bills and bring the best elements of each to ndengthened version, for committee consideration. fessor of Urban and Regional Planning SK/kls This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1976, to We appreciate the comprehensive report you have given us relating to a symposium held by the Senate Government Operations Committee on February 4-6 on the subject of government's role in the setting of long-term goals and strategies. The whole matter of government planning is of immense importance to the nation, and certainly important to the nation's economy. Too much planning could be worse than no planning at all for a free society. For that reason, I strongly endorse the point made by some who participated in your symposium who called for planning on a selective bases. Recent past history, and current developments, clearly tell the story of how too much government planning can lead to infringements on personal freedoms and to economic stagnation. This is certainly the case in the so-called centrally-planned economies where the effects of too much government planning have led to low standards of living and serious limitations on the individual's freedom of choice. The trouble with too much government planning is that it places the destiny of a society into the hands of very few people. The more central planning, the fewer people who make ultimate decisions. Far better is a system, such as our own enterprise system, that gives every member of society a chance to influence decisions as to how our resources ought to be used. In this country, each of us helps to make such decisions every time we buy a product or service, or refrain from buying; every time we save or spend; every time we invest. To be sure, such a system has its problems. But it would be a great mistake to seek an impossible utopia at the expense of the system we have. The National Chamber is encouraged by recent developments that can provide the kind of planning that we think is within the limits of appropriate and proper planning by government. I am referring to the Budget and Improvement Control Act of 1974, which we supported, and which we believe provides, through the federal budgetary process, the single most important means -- and appropriate means -- that Congress and the President have for setting national goals and priorities. We would strongly recommend that the new process be implemented by the Congress and the Executive Branch. If implemented with care and with a minimum of partisanship, that process could be a highly effective means for setting national goals and priorities. More recently, we have been encouraged by the introduction of S. 2925, the Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976. Here, again, would be a great contribution to the role of government in looking at national goals and setting priorities. In the final analysis, planning, both private and public, can be no better than the ability to spot trends. In this regard, we have always felt that the Joint Economic Committee plays an important role. Here in the National Chamber, we established many years ago a Council on Trends and Perspective, which has helped us look at trends in areas such as national health care, consumerism, economic growth, and the corporation in transition. Again, Senator, let me express deep appreciation for calling to our attention the symposium you held back in February and for seeking the views of the National Chamber. We would be very pleased to have an opportunity to meet with you or members of your staff to discuss this incredibly important subject more fully. When all is said and done, the question of government planning goes to the heart of some of the fundamental principles upon which our political and economic systems are based. It is a subject that is of paramount importance to the nation and to the business community. Attachment Sincerely, Z Richard L. Lesher |